Efficacy of ormeloxifene versus oral contraceptive in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding due to uterine leiomyoma

The efficacy of medical management of leiomyoma-associated heavy menstrual bleeding: a mini review

Leiomyomas, or fibroids, are benign uterine tumors that are commonly associated with abnormal uterine bleeding-L particularly heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). Treatment options include expectant, medical, image-guided, and surgical. Medical management of HMB is the preferred first-line treatment and includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, contraceptive hormones, tranexamic acid, levonorgestrel intrauterine system, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and antagonists, selective progesterone receptor modulators, selective estrogen receptor modulators, and aromatase inhibitors. Although alternatives such as vitamins and supplements have been suggested, there is currently a lack of robust evidence of their efficacy. Many of these therapies treat the symptoms rather than the underlying pathology. Progestin-based therapies are the most commonly utilized, although research supporting their effectiveness in the treatment of HMB is modest. Although GnRH agonists and antagonists, which are federal drug administration-approved therapies, provide substantial improvement in abnormal uterine bleeding-L with HMB, the effects typically last for the duration of therapy. Patients may also face financial barriers to GnRH analog therapy. Future studies are required to delineate the nonhormonal treatment options and the long-term management of leiomyoma-associated HMB.

Health-Related Quality of Life With Ulipristal Acetate for Treatment of Uterine Leiomyomas: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Ulipristal acetate is associated with significant improvements in health-related quality of life and symptom severity compared with placebo in women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate effects of ulipristal acetate on health-related quality of life (QOL) and symptom severity in women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas and abnormal uterine bleeding.

METHODS:

Women were randomized to ulipristal (5 mg, 10 mg) or placebo in two phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (VENUS I and II). Health-related QOL and symptom severity were assessed at baseline, and over one (VENUS I and II) and two (VENUS II) 12-week treatment courses using the Uterine Fibroid Symptom Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire. In pooled VENUS I and II data, change from baseline to the end of the first course for each Uterine Fibroid Symptom Health-Related Quality of Life scale was analyzed, including a Revised Activities subscale that measured physical and social activities. The proportion of women achieving meaningful change in the Symptom Severity (20 or more points), Health-Related QOL Total (20 or more points), and Revised Activities (30 or more points) scales was calculated. In VENUS II data, change from baseline to the end of each course in each scale was analyzed for each treatment arm.

RESULTS:

In pooled analyses, the intent-to-treat population included 589 patients (placebo, n=169; ulipristal 5 mg, n=215; ulipristal 10 mg, n=205). Significantly greater improvements from baseline in all Uterine Fibroid Symptom Health-Related Quality of Life scales were observed with both ulipristal doses compared with placebo (P<.001). A meaningful change in Revised Activities was achieved by 51 patients receiving placebo (34.9%), compared with 144 (73.5%; OR 5.0 [97.5% CI 2.9–8.6]) and 141 (80.6%; OR 7.9 [97.5% CI 4.3–14.6]) patients receiving ulipristal 5 mg, and 10 mg, respectively. In VENUS II, at end of courses 1 and 2, both ulipristal doses demonstrated significant improvements from baseline compared with placebo for all Uterine Fibroid Symptom Health-Related Quality of Life scales (P<.01). Mean Revised Activities scores showed that beneficial ulipristal effects were maintained in course 2, and improvements occurred on switching to ulipristal; results for other scales were similar.

CONCLUSION:

Ulipristal was associated with significant improvements in health-related QOL and symptom severity compared with placebo for women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02147197 and NCT02147158.

FUNDING SOURCE:

Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland.

Pictorial methods to assess heavy menstrual bleeding in research and clinical practice: a systematic literature review

Background

Pictorial blood loss assessment charts (PBACs) represent the most widely used method to assess menstrual blood loss (MBL) in clinical trials. The aims of this review were to: (1) determine the diagnostic accuracy of PBACs that have been validated against the reference alkaline hematin technique; (2) categorize the pitfalls of using obsolete and nonvalidated charts; (3) provide guidelines for development of a new PBAC or use of an existing chart to measure MBL in clinical trials; and (4) consider the feasibility of using pictorial charts in primary care.

Methods

A literature review was conducted using Embase and MEDLINE databases. The review identified reports of women with self-perceived or actual heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), bleeding disorders, abnormal uterine bleeding, leiomyomata (uterine fibroids) or endometriosis, and women undergoing treatment for HMB, as well as those with normal menstrual periods. Data were reviewed from studies that focused on the development and validation of PBACs and from those that used derivative noncertified charts to assess HMB.

Results

Nine studies reported validation of PBAC scoring systems against the alkaline hematin technique. Across these studies, the sensitivity was 58–97%, the specificity was 7.5–95.5%, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.1–13.8 and 0.14–0.56, respectively, and the diagnostic odds ratio was 2.6–52.4. The cut-off score above which the diagnosis of HMB was made ranged from 50 to 185. Several modifications of these PBACs were used in other studies; however, objective confirmation of their validity was not reported. Overall, there was widespread inconsistency of chart design, scoring systems, diagnostic cut-off limits and post-treatment outcome measures.

Conclusions

PBACs are best suited to the controlled and specific environment of clinical studies, where clinical outcome parameters are defined. The current lack of standardization precludes widespread use of the PBAC in primary care.

Review registration number

PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews: CRD42016030083.

Combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Menorrhagia or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an excessive blood loss that impairs a woman's quality of life, either physical, emotional, social or material. It is benign and not associated with pregnancy or any other gynaecological or systemic disease. Medical treatments used to reduce excessive menstrual blood loss (MBL) include prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors, antifibrinolytics, oral contraceptive pills, and other hormones. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is claimed to have a variety of beneficial effects, inducing a regular shedding of a thinner endometrium and inhibiting ovulation, thus having the effect of both treating HMB and providing contraception. More recently, a contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) has been trialled to investigate whether this treatment can provide similar benefits to COCP while lessening hormonal systemic exposure. This review is an update of a review which originally focused on COCP alone. The scope of the review has been widened to consider other types of delivery of combined hormonal contraceptives for reduction of MBL.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives (pills, vaginal ring or patch) compared with other medical therapies, placebo, or no therapy in the treatment of HMB. A secondary objective was to compare the COCP with the CVR.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Gynecology and Fertility Group trials register, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO (search dates: Oct 1996, May 2002, June 2004, April 2006, June 2009, July 2017 and September 2018) for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of COCP and CVR for the treatment of HMB. We also searched trial registers and the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of COCP or CVR compared with no treatment, placebo, or other medical therapies for women with HMB and regular menstrual cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All assessments of trial quality and data extraction were performed unblinded by at least two review authors. Our primary review outcomes were treatment success, menstrual bleeding (assessed objectively, semi-objectively or subjectively), and participant satisfaction with treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, and haemoglobin level.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs involving 805 participants. Two trials comparing COCP with placebo were considered to be moderate quality and the remaining studies were low to very low quality, mainly because of serious risk of bias from lack of blinding and concerns over precision.COCP versus placeboCOCP, with a step-down oestrogen and step-up progestogen regimen, improved response to treatment (return to menstrual 'normality') (OR 22.12, 95% CI 4.40 to 111.12; 2 trials; 363 participants; I² = 50%; moderate-quality evidence), and lowered MBL (OR 5.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 8.40; 2 trials; 339 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) when compared to placebo. The results suggested that, if the chance of 'successful' treatment was 3% in women taking placebo, then COCP increased this chance from 12% to 77% in women with unacceptable HMB. Minor adverse events, in particular breast pain, were more common with COCP. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment.COCP versus other medical treatmentsNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the COCP reduced MBL when compared to NSAIDs (mefenamic acid and naproxen). No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, participant satisfaction with treatment or adverse events.Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS)The LNG IUS was more effective than COCP in reducing MBL (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.48; 2 trials; 151 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) but it was not clear whether satisfaction with treatment or adverse effects varied according to which treatment was used. No study in this comparison reported semi-objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.Contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) versus other medical treatmentsCOCP COCP was compared with CVR in two trials. There were discrepancies between some of the findings and there was no evidence of a benefit for one treatment compared to the other for response to treatment, MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment. There was a greater likelihood of nausea with COCP. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL.ProgestogensCVR was compared to long course progestogens in one trial. It is possible that CVR increased the odds of satisfaction; but we are uncertain whether CVR improved MBL. The evidence was based on small numbers of participants and was very low quality, so definitive conclusions could not be reached. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that the combined oral contraceptive pill over six months reduces HMB in women with unacceptable HMB from 12% to 77% (compared to 3% in women taking placebo). When compared with other medical options for HMB, COCP was less effective than the LNG IUS. Limited evidence suggested that COCP and CVR had similar effects. There was insufficient evidence to determine comparative efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives with NSAIDs, or long course progestogens.